Am: the instinctual expression of "be"

Existence is the entirety of what is sensed (sensibilia) by a creation complex but which is perceived at least in part as nothing. It cannot be broken down into constituent parts as it is present for the most part in ignorance and cannot be differentiated: it is the quintessential of an unknown totality specifically without fixed border or any known limitation. Knowledge is the totality of thought including that which is known called thought-perception and that which is unknown called thought-source. Since only existence can be sensed nonexistence cannot "be" and therefore does not come directly to mind. Rather it is an idea derived from the negation of existence as opposed to being something which by nature must exist. Thus nonexistence can only be the ignorance of existence and comes to mind when we reflect upon the idea of nothing. Now recall Aristotle who defined infinity not as that which comes from nothing but that which always comes from something else: an apt definition for both infinity and a collective unconscious. In order to "be" perceived apart from an essential form of be, the abstract nature of existence must be wholly sensed without potential or actual qualities; without causality (i.e. synchronicity/Jung, Participation mystique/Lévy-Bruhl). Transcendent being is aware of itself objectively while being ignorant of the true nature of existence. The occurrence of the transcendent in persons is erroneously identified with the existence of being so that it can see itself as a thing or object ("it"/"I") as opposed to a process of thinking and conscious forming and rising out of a prevailing unconscious situation ("am"). Being senses itself twice: once as the sensor of existence (totality/"am") and once as the inclination (instinct) toward consciousness ("I") called thought-source (pre-life/original complex). Presupposition is the condition of thought prior to any formal conception so as to be believed or disbelieved; prior to knowing or unknowing. It is the pure essence of being insofar as the thought entails no opinion for or against it, the crux of one-sided thinking (mass insanity/Jung). It involves the ego only to the degree of the startle reflex where one is first made aware of things. Instinct is a transcending of being from an unconscious type activity to a conscious activity. This implies that the essence of being - that which must exist - is associated with an unconscious nature or laws of physics a reflective behavior and is irregardless of any occurrence or opinion at all.

The transcendent expresses itself as "I" indicative of being aware of the self objectively. This objectivity is directed toward a knowing self, not necessarily feeling, and appears outside of being and occurring apparently as a whole. Being is not so obvious as "itself": when we reflect more deeply and carefully into the nature of self a more highly subjective aspect is revealed. Therefore "am" is not aware of "itself" and is not reflective of an actual occurrence: an instinctual expression of being (be transcending) without previous knowledge of self. Am is the present singular form of be and expresses only the essential nature of being: not personified such as a pronoun. Since it ("am") is a singular form, the world is not derived by a comparison with other selves ("we"/plurality is) or occurrences. Rather it is inadvertent (natural) and results from existing, not occurring. Existence (eternal) is not dependent on occurrence (temporal) while the opposite is not true. Occurrence is dependent on existence and physical law at the level of "nothingness" (relativity) as the nature to which it is held by the perception of 0.0 for example an indefinite whole - original complex leading to Einstein's observer at 1.0 - suggests a contracting or expanding universe containing 1.0 at it's center. However, where zero (0.0) is known to have come from something else (reality) suggests a transformation: something to something else, not a creation. This is where I think Northrop Frye comes in saying god (creation complex) is a verb where he related god (fourth person) to "am" on an impersonal basis: Exodus 3:14 KJV - And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I .... That would be the quintessential and even archetypal form of subjectivity. This would not typify a god-man but strongly suggests a god-man complex where the reason would set into competition (ego) with the seemingly weaker senses and sacrifice (defeat) thought-source (the "fall") ending at insanity/relativity (blindness/Hades), not reality (hyper-surface of present). Reality would have a sane set of laws (direct) and at a time of extinction we might like to discover those. By my account we are looking at third person, he is/she is where he and she are not alone. In winning the triple crown immediately following Prince Harry's wedding to Megan ("pearl of wisdom") Justify was not just a horse but likely a seal in revelations and a symbol of libido. It suggests third person (triple crown) includes direct contact with the archetypes (male and female) which in monism (marked as one) is Hecate whom prior to being the first moon goddess was both sun and moon as was Inanna. Unlike Hermes or Thoth (thrice great) at third person (hermaphroditic) they were compound and likely a complex not yet polarized (dualism). The fact that the north pole is "fleeing" suggests we have returned (repression) to monism/Hecate. To put into perspective the ancient primitive did not relate sexual activity to the bearing of children and for the most part this was taught at Delphi (temple). Both Jung and Graves claim and discuss this situation similarly yet independently.

Frye's notion suggests "am" is derived from the existence of an unknowing and collective subjectivity. Action (verb) is relative to occurrence and applies only to the transient through observation. Occurrence, unlike existence itself, can be reduced and action becomes comparative of two or more objects: relativity (Einstein). However, "am" is derived from process, cannot be located in space, and is necessarily unknowing on a singular level. Being is a mystery unto itself. It is an animate form of itself and not an "it" at all. Am suggests self is a state or condition not contained and Jung describes this as suppressed or Janet as subconscious and even the emerald tablet (Hermes Trismegistus) "above" and "below". "I" treats a verb "be" as an object presupposing that "being" is derived from an occurrence (temporal). An occurrence - with beginning and end - implies existence but can't be existence; eternal, without beginning and end. For this reason what "I" experiences along with space is an immediate, but this is not the hyper-surface of present as Einstein suggests. The past, present, and future exist but occurrence can only be immediate (contained). "Am" is an inadvertent result of existing superimposed with the occurrence of "it". Likely self had to exit self to understand (stand under) self giving up more than one form called persons (first second third ...). The word "be" links back to the Latin "fui" "I have been", the root of "futurus" "about to be" and "fieri" "to become". "Am", therefore, is derived or sensed first as an approximate or estimated immediate posited between a past and future. Since we sense then reason out later on we tick. Consequently time not space is the key to understanding "be" in the immediate. Without existence there is no past, present, or future and without occurrence (spatially dependent) there is no relating to time. "Am" is an act of display. The immediate comes from the Latin "in+medius"; "in the middle". "Be" is derived from a point neither in the past or future and "am", therefore, is a deriving (extracting, attaining) of a center or midpoint. "Be" is before the future and after the past (location in time): "am" is the immediate feeling (subjective) toward the future which overlaps with a sense of the end; history concludes. "Am" is a transference just as consciousness is the aim of instinct: "I" requires "am" grammatically. Watch the inflections of be: 1) "I am on my way" (journey too) 2) I will be on my way (departing from). We don't just see a sense of "now" but a sense of when" which only through further inflections could it achieve "where" offering up the question of spatiality further along. What this implies is that living (life) was not our original form nor will it be our final form. This explains why Plato defined existence (related to Elysian fields) nearly a thousand years before mankind came up with the term occurrence which early on meant "unexpected happening" at a time man was necessarily dumping the notion of "magic" (unexpected) by revealing laws of physics (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton etc.).

Will can only be in the present involving "itself" while in teaching we would see will over "others" creating the condition of inflating; piously, megalomania. We are being taught to go from first person singular to second person "you" without identifying one or more subjectivities for the purposes of achieving the determiner "mine" , not "ours". This allows teachers to take charge of people as if they own the right (form of slavery). Capitalist's like this because they desire personal ownership and accumulation (megalomania). There is only one real path from first person singular and that is to first person singular ("I") to first person plural ("we"): we reject reality ("our") for "mine", over time have gone insane, and face an extinction because of it. Humanity can't overcome capitalism which is supported only by compulsion and nothing real. That makes this civilization an infestation (disease). We are being educated to be insane. "Am" is unlike other verbs and cannot be the grammatical center of a predicate where the predicate does not express a subjective nature (first person second person). A presence of an unknown subjectivity is what differentiates "I" from "be" in the first place and "am" differentiates "them". Any predicate joined to "I am" such as "playing guitar", "going to the store" implies a "doing" action, not a "being" form. "I am" alone implies a word is being left out. Where existence itself is left out and is presupposing occurrence "am" is used by "I" fictitiously to equate itself to things objectively. Probably the most widely mistaken form is to equate "I" to such terms as career or reputation giving career life (sun is male), or rather than careering ("doing") one becomes teacher, lawyer etc... (being/personified). That is no different than equating the sun to male and moon to female (psychotic). We do this fictitiously for the purposes of mythology (Physics we don't understand), not for "be". This is a falsification of "be"; false witness, false prophet. This is called the matter-man complex which when fated to a "doing" at the time of an extinction would be called the business-man complex; can't be wrong, can't possibly be real. It is an inflation of a pronoun not an assessment of psyche (instinctual activity). All propagation of a species is doing is merely allowing that which exists to occur. When a predicate derived from outside of the subject is applied, the meaning of "am" is corrupted ("fallen"). "I" has set out to prove something of an objective nature about "be" while "am" suggests instinct has an entirely different and real (natural) purpose for "I" because of it's subjective nature. That which is yet to be identified (being in person) is not being expressed in the modern world but presupposed. That an "I" has become the teacher and master over self is a sure sign the concept of existence as a whole, not reduced to parts, has been nihilated - relative; 0.0 where something came from nothing. That would be a species and an evolution going extinct. "I" is a pronoun, only representative of something else, and not a thing itself (actual noun). With "I" we see something not belonging to "us" attempting a coup. "I" has only one route, to "we", or invariably goes insane at second person "you" every single time: that action defines the impossible as absolute (teach). "I" must go to "we" before attempting second person or the ascension ends in the determiner (third person) "mine" not "ours" and a wrestling of angels on Jacobs ladder ensues. This is exactly why Kobe (Jacob) died in that helicopter at that point in the core mystery. This is also why one responding to an inner calling for help would be selected at this time by instinct to do or die in a core mystery for that instinct in an attempt to lay down a real zero, something coming from something else (reality), which should bind man by two zeroes, the dual mother, twins, and "second birth". Nasa noted a change as well, the great conjunct (Moses/Christ) in December which was at 3 degrees Aquarius (marking third person) is now at 0.0 which should mark 7 (days of week/creation). The event was marked by the death (core mystery) of Sean Connery (007) and we are now bound (Bond) by two zeroes where James literally translates as "replacer", "supplanted". Education merely blackmails and creates paid slaves, an infestation which will end in an extinction every single time. It segregates, has a ravenous appetite for mine and possessions (singular), and does not permit "we"/"our"; plurality, reality. ... Dave and Abby